I get that people are desperate to create a narrative, but spreading blatant falsehoods to undermine trust in our institutions is harmful garbage. It won't help Trump win, but it will hurt your credibility.
This is another claim/video that went viral claiming to show someone burning ballots. It is false.
It is not true that Trump observers were not being allowed to watch the ballots being counted in Philly. The argument was over how close they can stand to those doing the counting.
Also, the counting is even being live-streamed to the public:
Here is a good short description of the process. It follows an adjudication that usually involves observers from all sides. The stamp he is applying is to note it is duplicated and the original was voided. They are kept separate for any review.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So it's time for a bit of a rant that will upset some of my followers. I have been intentionally biting my tongue until the polls close (outside a few still open), but have to be honest about what I have wanted to say.
First, to come clean on my election prediction:
Here was my intentionally cryptic tweet representing electoral votes and Senate seats:
I stayed quiet until the polls were closed for one major reason: Trump was already an anchor on at-risk Senate candidates that are desperately needed to keep Dems in check and I didn’t want to add to that.
Your initial tweet, which portrayed it as an unjustified shooting, has thousands of shares. Entire neighborhoods are being destroyed and innocent people being hurt based on that perception.
If press can't report on these incidents responsibly, they shouldn't do it at all.
The video clearly shows him chasing 2 officers with a knife and threatening them. Could they have waited for him to take another step closer?
Maybe.
Is this a clear example of misuse of force? Not based on that video.
You get the feeling that some people, including those at many press outlets, are almost rooting for violence every time one of these incidents happen at this point. That's the only explanation for how irresponsibly they frame their descriptions after them.
The coverage of the PA SCOTUS decision today makes it rather obvious that a lot of reporters have no idea how to cover court cases or what is the court's role. They always seem to imply the court ruled to promote a certain policy outcome, which is rarely what happened.
In today's case, SCOTUS rejected stay requestS from the PA GOP after the state Supreme Court ruled ballots can be received up to 3 days after the election as long as it wasn't postmarked after the election. They didn't provide an opinion/explanation.
The 4 Justices who wanted to grant the stay likely wanted to do so because the PA statute is rather clear in limiting ballots to being received by 8 PM on election day and such a change needs to come from the PA legislature, not the courts. They'd argue it's not the court's role.
Especially obvious once you realize Trump's election hasn't made much difference in the trajectory of US emissions, which have been steady or declining since 2006 or our share of global emissions.
Their main evidence for the claim was that the US withdrew from the Paris agreement, but they fail to note that most other countries failed to live up to their promises in that agreement, U.S. has continued to reduce emissions, and there was nothing binding in that agreement.